[Vision2020] Dodging Important Questions

[Dan Carscallen]

Do I think there's some climate change going on?  Maybe
 
If it is, do I think it's "anthropogenic"?  Less likely that, more
likely the sort of climate change that has been going on 'round the
planet for the last 4 or 5 billion years.
 
Do I think people should do their part to "prevent" climate change?  I
don't think we'll "prevent" anything.  Change will happen.  But, I've
got nothing against people doing their part for conservation, nor do I
have anything against exploring alternative energy sources.  I don't
think T. Boone Pickens is entirely altruistic in his campaign.  There
are bucks to be made in his plan, and I think he'll make a few of 'em.
 
Do I trust weather alerts?  To an extent.  Remember, we're talking
"weather" and not "climate".  I have an idea that the NOAA bunch has a
better idea about what's going to happen in the next couple hours than
they do for the next week or month, not to mention the next 10, 20, 100
years.  I've also spent a lot of time looking at radar maps just so I
know what we'll have to deal with in my job at the Highway District.  
 
DC
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Moffett [mailto:starbliss at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:21 AM
To: Kai Eiselein, Editor; Chasuk
Cc: Dan Carscallen; vision2020
Subject: Re: Dodging Important Questions
 
The question stands, unanswered by Carscallen, on this list, as far as I
have read.  Chas and Kai appear intent on distracting focus away from
the question, given their ad hominem comments.  I am not the issue.  The
question is the issue.  The livability of our planet, and the responses
of those in government to this problem, is the issue.
 
Why should this question inspire such personalized responses towards
someone posing it?  As if the problem of human impacts on climate is not
important enough to merit posing questions to public officials regarding
what they think should be done to address the issue?  That is, assuming
they even acknowledge the gravity of the problem.
 
If Carscallen wants to respond, he will.  If he doesn't, he won't.  What
is Chas and Kai's stake in this?
 
Regarding Chas's response, I do not "derail any thread and subvert
it..."  nor did I "subvert" Carscallen's post under discussion, unless
from the point of view of someone oblivious to the science regarding
predicted impacts of human influenced climate change.  Chas's
personalized hyperbole is puzzling.  Chas's response has no content that
directly relates to the subject of climate change regarding the
appropriateness of my question in response to Carscallen's post.
 
My question to Carscallen was related to the subject heading of his post
"Weather advisory," and was not an attempt to "subvert," but to
enlighten.  This is so obvious...
 
Carscallen posted a weather advisory regarding an impending storm.  I
asked (and I paraphrase), given he trusts these government weather
advisories, does he trust what NOAA presents regarding anthropogenic
climate change, considering he has in the past dismissed human impacts
on global climate, as they relate to increased extreme weather?  
 
Is this an inappropriate question?  And how is it "subverting" the
thread?  In fact, my question relates rather profoundly to the thread.
 
As to Kai's response, my response was not about a subject "completely
different," as Kai writes.  As I explained above, severe weather is
related to, in fact predicted by, anthropogenic climate change.  Why Kai
does not consider this obvious connection, I am not sure.  
 
Kai also does not reference my science based researched posts on the
subject of anthropogenic climate change, but instead, likens my posts on
this critical scientific subject, that impacts the future livability of
our planet, to someone "obsessing" about Star Wars paraphernalia, or
making arguments regarding climate science like the following:
 
Dandelions blooming early? Global warming.
Dandelions blooming late? Global warming.
A feather fell off a duck's butt? Global warming.
-----------
Kai is likening my posts on climate change to this simple minded
juvenalia?  In depth study of the problem of human impacts on climate is
comparable to someone obsessing on Star Wars paraphernalia?  His
response is like a radio talk show host, using emotional language and
images, rather than fact and reason, to make someones position appear
ridiculous.  And these tactics are coming from someone insisting on
journalistic objectivity?  
 
I have received positive feedback from some very well educated members
of this community regarding my researched contributions to this list on
climate science and related human impacts.  Till I receive feedback from
these individuals that my posts on climate science are somehow
inappropriate, I'll dismiss Chas and Kai's oddly ad hominem responses.
Chas and Kai in their criticisms have not offered a fair evaluation, in
my opinion.
 
Ted Moffett
 
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:45, Ted Moffett <starbliss
<http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020>  at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Kai is dodging the discussion of important questions once again, using
> laughable amateur armchair psychoanalysis in the process. What a howl!
> Thanks for the humor...

I don't see this as Kai dodging an issue, so much as your giving in to
own compulsion to derail any thread and subvert it to fit your tedious
mania.

Bad etiquette, Ted, and childish, especially when your ridiculous
accusation is transparently motivated by Kai prudently ignoring your
bait.

Chas

On 8/20/08, Kai Eiselein, Editor <editor at lataheagle.com> wrote:
Ted, I didn't dodge your question, I completely, totally and
intentionally ignored it.
When one is constantly bringing the same subject up, over and over,
despite a discussion on something completely different, it strikes me as
being obsessive. Armchair or not, perception is everything. This is my
perception, like it or not. It's kind of like the guy who collects all
the Star Wars stuff, knows all of the characters' "history", the size,
armament and max speed of every ship. Yeah, "that guy", the one
everybody avoided because he couldn't talk about anything else.
We were talking about a storm warning. You turned it into yet another
take on global warming.
Dandelions blooming early? Global warming.
Dandelions blooming late? Global warming.
A feather fell off a duck's butt? Global warming.
I know all about being obsessive, I drool over photographic equipment
catalogues like a 16 year old male drools over a Victoria's Secret
catalogue. I think about photography constantly, shots I've seen, shots
I've taken and shots I want to take. Nearly everything I see, I look at
with eye towards, "How can I shoot that?"
Thankfully, you were wrong about the storm, I've been waiting for one
like that for two years. (The last really good one was July 5, 2006)

 
From: Ted Moffett <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:45 PM
To: Kai Eiselein, Editor <mailto:editor at lataheagle.com>  
Cc: Dan Carscallen <mailto:areaman at moscow.com>  ; vision2020
<mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>  
Subject: Dodging Important Questions

 
Kai is dodging the discussion of important questions once again, using
laughable amateur armchair psychoanalysis in the process.  What a howl!
Thanks for the humor...
 
I don't require your photos to enjoy the beauty of nature... You are
absolutely clueless regarding this aspect of my life.  But thanks
anyway.  They are nice photos.
 
Asking a Moscow City Council member if they continue to engage in
misinformed obscurantism (my view of Carscallen's past comments on
Vision2020 regarding this issue) regarding human impacts on climate, one
of the most critical issues humanity is facing, and certainly an issue
that can be addressed by local government, is an important question.
 
Dodging questions is a very important skill, for editors who must
protect their reputation, given the political slant of readership and
supporters, and for politicians, as we all know.
 
Ted Moffett

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080821/044a229d/attachment-0001.html